Billings
Big guys like us, probably DON'T get attacked this way. So lets expand the parameters to our students. How many of you think that some abusive males may grab a woman's wrists with his hands?
Would this technique's initial move effectively release the grip? The way I teach it, it certainly would. Don't assume it is "all about you" when analyzing the effectiveness of any technique, or part thereof. Is it useful somewhere within the system? And secondly, to whom and in what circumstances?
When did we begin to qualify self-defense techniques based on sex (no... not the verb, the noun :uhyeah: )?
I have no doubt that the initial move would release the grip, that was not in question. However, what was in question was the probability that anyone would ever be grabbed in this manner. Also, If anyone were ever to be grabbed in this fashion, what would be the attackers likely intent (i.e. reason for performing a double wrist grab, what does this accomplish) as well as the likely progression of events after this particular grab. We all know that certain holds or grabs are precursors to more aggressive action? So what is the progression?
Clyde.... excuse me "annonypuss", as you tend to call eveyone else who posts under pseudonyms, stated that my inquiries were stupid. That a possible reason his hands may be at his side.... well why don't I just let you hear it from him.
I may not have time nor inclination to do so. My best oppurtunity for strikes could be with my legs, my hands at my side.
If this is the case, then what is the point of this technique? Does the tech Begging Hands not lead off with a kick hands chambered at the side from breaking the hold which I might add is another two handed wrist grab.
My whole point is that as the student trains and hopefully becomes smarter they will respond differently then they would have at a previous level. So what is the purpose of treating the beginning of each and every technique the same as if the students were still responding to their environments as white or yellow belts? Why wouldn't their hands be up? Why wouldn't they be in a neutral bow? Shouldn't each belt level build not only on the mechanics but the strategies of the level that preceeded it?
Why doesn't it go like this,"When you are a purple belt you may get grabbed like this so you do technique x, but you should be looking for this. However, by putting your hands up you may expose yourself to this, so you will need to understand how to defend against y. Later on z may come into play."
This becomes the game you play for the situation you find yourself in.
BTW, if you're not doing EPAK, don't lecture me, or any others for that matter, on how to do it, I AM doing it, and I understand it.
I'm sorry that you feel as if I'm lecturing you Clyde this started out as a farely enjoyable discussion. Don't forget that you were the one who started in with the negative posting. I actually appreciated Mr. Conatser's reply and had intended to continue discussing the merits of the ideal phase, but instead you came in hair flying because someone "ATTACKED" your curriculum. All I did was ask a few questions regarding the reasons that a 3rd brown student would need another technique beginning from a natural stance two handed wrist grab. Geez, I mean come on aren't you like a 6th degree blackbelt? I thought you might know something about the nature of the attack? You said you did, it's the only reason I asked.
You obviously feel that I shouldn't post on EPAK because I don't "do it" anymore. My experience with EPAK may be limited to just a couple of years, but you still feel compelled to post on PMAK ( I kinda like this little abbreviation) and you have almost no experience in this system. This seems to be just another hypocritical statement.
